Madhya Pradesh High Court
Manager vs Mohd. Abid on 7 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36101
1 MA-1841-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN
ON THE 7 th OF MAY, 2026
MISC. APPEAL No. 1841 of 2015
MANAGER
Versus
MOHD. ABID AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Rakesh Kumar Kesharwani - Government Advocate for
appellant/State.
None for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
This miscellaneous appeal has been filed by appellant under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 31.10.2014 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balaghat in Claim Case No.15/2013, whereby compensation of Rs.3,54,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of respondent No.1/claimant.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal committed an error in treating the injuries sustained by respondent No.1/claimant.
It is further submitted that the Tribunal has considered 10% permanent disability of respondent No.1/claimant without there being any valid disability certificate or sufficient medical evidence on record. It is further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was excessive and not based upon proper appreciation of evidence available on record. In these circumstances, award passed by the Tribunal may be set aside and the same may be reduced.
3. None appears for respondent No.1/claimant, therefore, respondent No.1 is Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 08-05-2026 18:41:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36101 2 MA-1841-2015 proceeded ex-parte.
4. Heard the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the appellant and perused the record.
5. On perusal of record, it is evident that Tribunal in para 15 of its award has considered 10% permanent disability of respondent No.1/claimant without any valid document/disability certificate and without mentioning any reason and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- on the same head, which is inappropriate and it reflects that Tribunal has mistakenly awarded the said amount in the aforesaid head. After perusing the record, it also appears that claimant/respondent No.1 had received fracture injury on his right hand arms, right hand shoulder and rod has also been implanted in his right hand arm. Due to which, Tribunal has determined 10% permanent disability of respondent No.1/claimant on basis of judgment passed in by this Court in case of Laxman Vs. Bhagwati Prasad and others; 2005 (2) Madhya Pradesh Weekly Note-113 (M.P.).
6. The law laid down by Full Bench of this Court, Bench at Gwalior regarding permanent disability in para 9 to 11 of the judgment dated 22.03.2004 passed in case of Kamal Kumar Jain v. Tazuddin are quoted as under:-
"9. We have heard Counsel for the parties. Question involved in all the cases is whether fracture of bones in a motor accident will amount to privation of any member or joint and would amount to permanent disability as defined in Section 142 of the Act. We may mention here that Section 142 is limited to Chapter X only. Mere fracture of bones and its re-union will not be sufficient to determine nature of disability unless determined by performing scientific test.
10. Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act relates to injuries under Sections 2(1) and 4 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Schedule I Part I relates to 100 per cent loss of earning capacity in the Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 08-05-2026 18:41:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36101 3 MA-1841-2015 cases of permanent total disablement. Part II relates to injuries deemed to result in permanent partial disablement. In the Schedule, 48 types of injuries causing permanent and partial disablement pertaining to different parts of body are mentioned. Note is appended below the Schedule which mentions that complete and permanent loss of the use of any limb or member referred to in this Schedule shall be deemed to be the equivalent to the loss of that limb or member. Note is clear where there is permanent loss of use of limb, disability will be 100 per cent and the injuries of permanent loss of those limbs which fall in Part I of the Schedule. However, percentage of loss shall not be higher than what has been mentioned in Para II regarding partial disablement. In the cases of complete and partial loss of use of any limb or member, it will amount to loss of use of that limb or member. Thus, the Legislature's intent is clear and Court should determine percentage of loss of earning capacity from the nature of injuries mentioned in the Schedule. Even otherwise, doctor's statement determining the loss of disability should be based upon scientific tests. If no scientific tests are conducted, then the Court may safely record the percentage of disability from Schedule I of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Percentage of loss determined in the Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act will be sufficient to determine the nature of disability and amount of compensation can be calculated by applying the multiplier mentioned in the schedule under Section 163A of the Act. It may be mentioned that mere fracture of bones and its re-union will not amount to permanent total disablement or permanent partial disablement, unless the doctor has examined the claimant and assessed the percentage of disability after performing scientific tests. Without performing scientific tests bald statement of the doctor and certificate is inadmissible in evidence. Visual opinion of doctor has no evidentiary value. Claims Tribunals, therefore, must assign reasons in arriving at the conclusion about the percentage of loss of income in the case of permanent partial disablement. Therefore, for determining the nature of permanent disability, there must be sufficient evidence on record to determine total or partial disablement. In the absence of evidence Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 08-05-2026 18:41:59 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36101 4 MA-1841-2015 regarding scientific tests to determine the percentage of disability, Claims Tribunals should take guidance from the Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act to determine the percentage of loss and shall apply multiplier on the basis of loss of income of the injured.
11. We, therefore, answer the reference as under :--
that fracture of bone simpliciter in an accident through a motor vehicle can not be termed as privation of any member or joint, unless it is proved by the medical evidence that after union of bones disability has occurred or on account of mal-union injury has suffered permanent/partial disability. In the absence of any evidence, each fracture can not be termed as privation of any member or joint. However, fracture in a joint where union of bones is not possible or where union of bone may cause permanent/partial disability, then interim compensation under Section 140 of the Act can be awarded. We may further add that in other cases for the purposes of permanent disability, Claims Tribunal has to record findings, at the time of final adjudication of the case, and loss of income should be determined on the basis of evidence on record. If the evidence about permanent or partial disability is insufficient, the Courts can certainly refer to the Schedule of Workmen's Compensation Act to determine loss of earning capacity or percentage of loss of partial disability or permanent disability, as the case may be, and determine the quantum of compensation."
7. Upon due consideration of the material available on record and aforesaid law laid down in Kamal Kumar Jain (supra) , this Court finds that although respondent No.1/claimant sustained injuries including fracture of the right hand and minor head injuries in the accident, there is no reliable medical evidence or disability certificate to establish permanent disability or functional disability warranting grant of compensation to the extent awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal appears to have assessed the compensation on a higher side without proper evidentiary basis.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 08-05-2026 18:41:59NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:36101 5 MA-1841-2015
8. However, considering the nature of injuries, period of treatment, pain and suffering undergone by the claimant and overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that a consolidated compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand Only) would be just, proper and reasonable on various heads i.e. medical expenses, pain and suffering, special diet and attendance and travelling expenditure in place of Rs.3,54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal.
9. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 31.10.2014 is modified and the compensation amount is reduced from Rs.3,54,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization.
10. The appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(RATNESH CHANDRA SINGH BISEN) JUDGE sp/-
Signature Not Verified Signed by: SUNIL KUMAR PATEL Signing time: 08-05-2026 18:41:59